Blogger Conference Call

I have posted this on my own blog and am re-posting it here so that I can glean the opinions of a wider audience (should those who follow this blog choose to share their opinions).
On March 16th, I received an e-mail from the House Republican Conference. It said that they are reaching out to blogs who do not currently receive their Congressional updates and videos.
They also extend invitations to exclusive blogger conference calls with House members on hot topics being discussed in Washington. I participated in my first such conference call with Reps. King, McCotter and McMorris Rodgers on the 25th.
Some of the topics addressed were the strategy of the current administration, the debt, increases in spending, entitlement spending, AIG, and etc.
To hear the call click here. This call lasted about 30 minutes. Mr. McCotter's remarks starting at 27 minutes, 45 seconds are refreshing.
"Our truths are self-evident, not relative"

I'm not quite sure why I was invited to participate in these calls as I am not a republican, but rather a conservative.
Let me know what you think. Is this sort of conference call valuable?
If so, and I decide to continue to participate and post on them, Would you prefer that I write a transcript of the call, post a link to the call itself, as I've done here, or just excerpt bits that I find relevant?

What's up with the AFB?

Given my lack of activity on the American Federalist Blog this month, I figure a little explanation is necessary.

I've started getting involved in the Republican Liberty Caucus, and the Illinois chapter. Follow that link and you'll see my first post on their wordpress-hosted website. I'll probably post there on Illinois and the GOP as those ideas come to me. The folks that write in this space have talked about the RLC before, and we're not 100% in agreement with them; which is OK, I think, because I sure as all-get-up am not in agreement with the GOP itself. I do think that the RLC might be a good organization for balanced government types like myself. Their people at least would have a better than average understanding of the Constitution and our founding. Where we diverge on policy issues, well, I'll make it my mission to help them see the beauty of balanced government and that where we disagree, I'm right and they're wrong. (I joke...)

I've also been working on my own not-for-profit. Behold, The Institute for Balanced Government. I'm not anywhere near where I want to be with it, but it is time consuming and I'm content to have small incremental changes and successes, because it is, to my way of thinking, a marathon and not a sprint; and I trust y'all won't judge me too harshly if I disclaim that it's still in beta stage. I will probably take some of the best posts on balanced government from this blog and dress them up for the Institute's blog. A consequence of this is that I'll probably be doing more posting on the topic there than here.

All of which leads me to my last point: I'm tired, people! And, unfortunately, less sleep makes for less reading and fresh ideas to post on. Bear with me if the posting comes less frequently (and check out those other links because I might be posting elsewhere), and thanks for being some of the greatest Liberty-loving readers an American Federalist could ask for!

The Conservative Manifesto

A man is talking to a friend about politics. Both men are fairly conservative. The first man is bemoaning the awful state of the government: runaway entitlements, ethical lapses, wrong-headed policies, and a sense that the governors have contempt for the governed. His friend, the second man, nods in agreement at the indictments the first man rattles off. The discussion turns to an upcoming election. The second man asks his friend "Who did you vote for in the previous election?"

"No one" says the first man, "I don't vote."

We've probably all had some variation of this story happen to us. And anyone who has will readily admit that such an admission elicits a fairly consistent response: we admonish others that voting is critical and both a right and responsibility, and without exercising that right and executing that responsibility, one forfeits his right to complain about our governors and our government. Fulfilling the duties of responsible citizenship is the burden one must bear to have the right to criticize the outcome. This concept goes back to the story of the little red hen which we remember from childhood. Everyone wants to share in the fruits of the labor, yet no one wants to share in the labor.

Across the blogosphere, I hear the same ideas repeated, if only slightly differently. These themes are: the GOP is broken; the Republican party has lost its way; we need a third party; where are our leaders; and what can we do now? While the blogosphere provides a critical service - that is, to say, news and commentary that would otherwise be unavailable via traditional media channels, and a means for like-minded people to connect with each other - it is far too easy to sit, comfortably, at our desks and "write fiery prose" as Mr. Hargis once said, when real change requires real action.

I've tried to share in this space some of the things I've actually done - other than sit at a desk and type. Perhaps other bloggers prefer to maintain some degree of anonymity, and therefore they don't catalogue for their readers the extensive volunteer activities they engage in politically. Perhaps. But I think it is more likely that bloggers like their comfort zone; getting out and working for a candidate involves trudging through eight inches of snow in January (and even falling down a set of icy stairs, as I did two weeks ago), and those things, are, well, just downright work; and in my case, actually very painful.

So I write this today for all of the inactive impassioned out there. You've got great ideas, and I think that's half of the recipe. The other half is you need a kick in the a.. um, pants. No one likes to hear it, but here's my advice, and I guess you could call this my Conservative Manifesto:

Push away from your desk and get up from the computer. Call your county or township GOP organization. Attend every monthly meeting; they're generally once a month and if I can do it given my commitments, anyone can. Volunteer to do things that need to get done: yes, these will likely be quite crappy and may include making phone calls to sell ad space, or volunteering to cover a precinct (and maybe in some cases, two) that aren't being worked. Get to know local candidates, and when you meet a good one, volunteer to stuff envelopes, bags of literature, and walk around (even in eight inches of snow, even if it's 20 degrees) distributing information on their behalf. In short, do what you've been doing online - building relationships and influencing others - with actual, live, person-to-person interactions.

When elections come, figuratively speaking, put your money where your mouth is. Organize like-minded people to walk precincts and make phone calls on behalf of conservative candidates in non-local contests. Hold meet-up groups where people can come together in support of those candidates. In short, take a look at what Ron Paul's people have done, get up off of your backside, and work.

And when elections roll around? You don't have to vote for John McCain; I've already said that I won't. But this won't keep me home. I'll be there voting for the conservatives in other races because they need my - and your - support. I'll be telling this to every single conservative I know who is disillusioned by a McCain candidacy: you still need to get out and vote for Senate, House, and State-wide races. Not liking the guy at the top of the ticket is no excuse for not supporting good people in their races.

In short: if you don't like the status quo, you have to change it. Not third person "you." I actually mean you. Assume that no one else will have the nerve, energy, or right ideas. Then, go do it.

When we've done everything we can do and the party doesn't conform to our vision, values and ideals, then we can declare it broken. Then we can assess what our options are. Then we can talk about creating a third party - Lord knows that's been a topic near and dear to my heart for a long, long time. Any of my co-contributors will vouch for that.

And if we get to that point, and conservatives need to find a new home, we'll have an army of conservative leaders who will have been working for change - not just writing about it - and will be ready to take that bold step into unchartered territory.

I'll close with a story that was shared with me recently. My friend Trevor Morgan shared this, that he had read in the WSJ. It seems that there was some new battery technology that was developed. Not by some scientists working for 3M, but by a guy in his garage. Said fellow was trying to build a better hot-rod, ostensibly to win races and impress girls. On more than one occasion, said fellow burned off the hair on his face working with an arc welder in his garage, but he eventually did it. The point of this story is that real change requires entrepreneurs. Not a scientist sitting in a lab who is concerned about a performance review or his 401(k), but someone who is willing to risk (repeated) visits to the emergency room for burn injuries in pursuit of a goal.

You may get sick walking a precinct in January. You may fall down a set of icy stairs on your back; if you're lucky and careful, probably not. Our Founders were willing to risk it all - everything - in pursuit of their values. If we're not willing to risk anything other than a couple of hours of free time, and only then sit at our computers and write that fiery prose, we're going to get more of the same. Be that entrepreneur who burns off his facial hair, though, and let's see if we can't get control of our party back.

Principles First, Issues Second

I have long thought that the problem with the GOP was the basis by which it was created - a third party founded to eliminate what in hindsight was a temporary problem.

While some might disagree, I think one of the most glorious moments in our nation's history is the founding of the GOP and Lincoln's prosecution of the war. An ugly blot - inconsistent with the Declaration of Independence - was wiped out at great cost to the country. Yet the party has struggled with the exception of a few periods of brilliance since then (see: Reagan, Ronald) and needs to refocus.

The GOP is a party in search of an identity. Buchanan's column suggests the same. There is a great rift in the party between "moderates" and conservatives. Calling that faction "moderates" is of course a Leftist trick - per their playbook, this infernal word game suggests that the liberal-bent within the GOP is the "reasonable" or "mainstream" part of the party.

I attend a fair number of meetings and hear a lot of Republicans speak. They all beat the drum on "limited government" (don't get me started) and family values. But when the party doesn't deliver on these "principles", as it unquestionably hasn't (out of control spending, Foley, Craig, etc.), it loses the trust and confidence of all but the most affectionate members of the party.

The great problem facing us as I see it, and this is no secret as any regular reader will note, is how imbalanced our system of government has become. I think that a political movement dedicated to returning and diligently preserving balanced government would withstand the changes of time - as our founders recognized that balance would be needed regardless of the societal changes that were impossible to foresee. It is my sincere hope that the GOP can be reformed and be the bearer of those principles. Yet, if it cannot, we have to be willing to form new political bands to preserve our freedom.

Grand Old Pandering

Something's been on my mind for a while and I need to put it out there.

Maybe I've not been aware of them in the past, but does it seem like more and more, there are "diversity groups" proliferating even among organizations like the GOP? There's a hispanic group, there are black GOP groups, and local women's groups. I'm sure there are Muslim groups. Here's the "teams" page for the GOP.

Perhaps, I will admit, I don't understand these minority groups because, well, I'm not a minority (at least I think not; I better go check the census statistics). But doesn't their existence seem to say something about the party? What, I'm not sure, but could you imagine Ann Coulter at a Women's GOP event? Or sitting at the kid's table for Thanksgiving dinner?

And on that page linked above, there's the standard comment about increasing diversity. Here's the thing: I want a party that welcomes people based upon their principles, shared values, creative ideas in support of those shared values, and the ability to contribute. If you want to call creative thinking "diversity" then fine by me. But let's not bow to cultural marxism like the rest of the automatons.

Thanks to Katie's Dad for turning me on to that link above.

So He's In

So Fred made his announcement... on Leno? I can sort of understand why Arnold made his announcement on Leno - it was a bit of a surprise and he was running for Governor of California, after all. But the non-candidate candidate (guess I can't call him that any more) has always been in the running, at least as far expectations go. And announcing on Leno seems... I don't know, maybe not becoming of the office you're seeking? I mean, the next thing you know, he's going to be playing a saxaphone on the Arsenio Hall show.

While I neither fear nor welcome a Fred Thompson candidacy, I cast serious doubts on his ability to "invigorate" a dispirited GOP. After all, we're looking for more conservatives, thankyouverymuch, and not more well-phrased platitudes without any meaningful substance behind them.

Hmm. I wonder...? Does that make Fred our Barack Obama? Says all the right things, but a little long on the sizzle and a little short on the steak?

Hypocrite, or Thoughtful Reconsideration?

Let's take a step back in time for a moment, as I illustrate a point.

Fourteen years ago I was just about to turn 21, I was working and going to school and living on my own. I pretty much had it all figured out. Not unrelated to the point of the story, I had stopped going to church at 18 when I started college and was still separated from the church.

I had a friend who I would argue with, just for fun. At the time, I had changed substantially from the kid who grew up idolizing Reagan to a, shall we say, fully indoctrinated product of my schooling. One particular disagreement I remember quite well was abortion. While I didn't support it, I argued, who was my friend to tell someone they couldn't make that decision?

Over time, my ideas changed, of course, and I once again found conservatism of the brand I grew up with. Now then: am I today a hypocrite for changing my mind? Am I a flip-flopper? Fourteen years ago, I said one thing; today, I say another. Suppose for a minute I decided to run for State Representative or County Board. Does that ambition suddenly make me a hypocrite or a flip-flopper? Would my opponent be justified in labeling me as such? Having seen the error of my ways, am I unfit as a candidate and worthy of scorn?

McCain came out today and had a change of heart about his position on illegal immigration. Should I rip him a new one, or be thankful that he gets it? Should I presume that I know what is in another person's mind and heart, and pronounce them guilty of political expediency? Or is it appropriate to give a candidate the benefit of the doubt and recognize that human beings use reason to refine their thinking and become better people?

I'm particularly fascinated in the charge of flip-flopping that is routinely leveled at Romney; most often it has to do with his stated position of the legality of abortion in his race against Kennedy in 1994.

So, here's the question: are you allowed to change your mind - rightly so - so long as you're not a public servant or a candidate for public office?

The Sell-Out of America

The filthy, self-serving elites in the Senate are at it again, as the amnesty bill that was temporarily knocked down has been regenerated like some ghastly corpse from a George Romero movie.

Time once again to get on the phones and fire off e-mails to our "representatives" and let them know how we feel. They heard from enough of us last time to shelve the issue. This time, it will go to a vote. I'm sure Ted Stevens will have an amendment for some of yours and my tax money to go to Alaska in exchange for his vote. There's a good chance they'll get the 60 votes they need if we don't do our job and flood them with feedback about how much this legislation stinks.

The disgusting and shameful sell-out of America continues. See my post here for what real immigration reform should look like: phased and measurable, not "comprehensive."

God save these United States.

Bush's Far-Reaching Agenda

So Bush met with the Pope and they talked about Africa, the Middle East and what he wants to do with respect to interstellar K-12 education. OK, that last one was a reach, but with a Compassionate Conservative, you never can tell, can you?

Like most sane people, I was appalled the other day when Bush announced that he wanted to spend double what we're currently spending to combat AIDS. Compulsory charity is no charity at all, but theft. As my friend Mr. Hargis has been known to say: if I were to do what the government is doing, and take your money against your will and give it to another person, I'd be put in jail. That there's little difference between the activities of crooks and Congressmen makes me pause.

Yet, here's an argument that stumped Medved, who I generally consider a pretty good debater. A caller suggested that before deadly diseases make it to America and potentially kill Americans, that we're better off preemptively fighting disease "over there." This was a clever spin on Bush's doctrine of preemption and Medved didn't have much to say. Chalk it up to being taken off guard pretty effectively.

But here's the difference. Disease - be it AIDS, TB, avian flu, whatever - can be fought if it is contracted by Americans. Suppose a rogue terrorist organization infected themselves with some super flu and brought it to the United States to infect others. Not a whole lot, I suppose, that could be done to stop that, yet medical treatments remain that could fight such bugs. If terrorists decide to ram planes into buildings, shoot up malls, blow up airports, or just plain drive their SUVs into crowded streets, there's not a whole lot of opportunity to fight back; once the act is done, it's done, and we're talking about merely putting up yellow police tape and preventing the next attack. As that ambulance chaser showed us, biological terrorism - or merely the resurgence of third world disease - may pose a threat to Americans and national security. However, using that analogy that stumped Medved is a little intellectually dishonest.

But I digress.

Here's what we all have to keep in mind come primary season: there's conservatives, and then there's everyone else. As Bush has showed us, there's precious little difference between a big government "conservative" and a Scoop Jackson Democrat (See: Rudy Giuliani).

Down With The Elites

The "thief class" is at it again. We have this to reflect on upon reading a story like this: there is precious little difference between Republicans and Democrats.

I can only wonder if the system - coupled with a degeneration of public virtue - is what causes this problem. If domestic matters were the responsibility of the most local spheres of government, would the earmark/pork/pet project phenomenon be a thing of the past? Maybe, maybe not. But at least there would probably be more light shed on the issue, and the opportunities for mischief would be fewer.

A Must-Read

I've got to tell you, this piece by Peggy Noonan says it all. I think Laura was reading excerpts of this earlier today.

The party was started for a very specific purpose. With a handful of brilliant exceptions, I wonder if the party has been slowly dying ever since then?

We've Got a Live One Here

So I was in the car today and happened to be listening to a CD when I thought... you know what, I'll bet Laura's just coming back from a commercial break.

And so she was, and wouldn't you know it, her guest was one Duncan Hunter, candidate for President of these United States. You can read about Duncan's positions here, and by golly, this seems like I guy I might be able to vote for.

Please take a look and see if anything doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I'm going to do the same. Folks, I haven't read every key-stroke of his site, but from a quick once-over, this might be my guy.

National Security

Here's one area where the goofy idolizing of Reagan actually makes some sense. For the record, I loved the guy. I grew up with him as my President. First thing I think of when someone says the word "President?" I'll give you three guesses, and the first two don't count. But all anyone ever talks about on talk radio is how conservatives are looking for the next Reagan. Please stop. He's not coming back, and while he was perfect for his time, time has marched on. Love the guy, cherish his memory, but let's not start walking around with the WWRD bracelets.

Since when did men stop being men? Here's a simple formula for success, courtesy of the Gipper: we win, they lose. But it has been said better than that...

"It is a principle incorporated into the settled policy of America, that as peace is better than war, war is better than tribute."

This from the "Father of the Constitution" James Madison.

A good conservative would never bow to threats and sabre rattling from some third-world loser. America is the most powerful nation on Earth. We are to be respected and, to a degree, feared.

All of which just makes me disappointed in two aspects of the Iraq War. First, the President is the Commander in Chief. Congress is not. Nor should the President have a "War Czar." The prosecution of the war is the domain of the Executive, and while a President cannot micro-manage a conflict, he can lay out the vision, delegate to his Generals, and speak directly to the American people to garner support (since little seems to be found in the Congress).

I've heard discussions about how bad the rules of engagement are in our conflict in Iraq, which is the other disappointment. If anyone has some first hand experience or stories of what our troops are going through, please share. It doesn't sound good, if half of what I've heard is true.

Time For A Nationwide Write-In

Here's what I've had on my mind lately. We can thank the stellar "candidates" running for office in 2008 for illustrating just how bad we have it in the United States. There's days that seem to carry some glimmer of hope in them and others that just seem to expose the utter idiocy of the people who have managed to take positions of "leadership" in the United States.

Any candidate should/must exhibit, in no particular order, the following characteristics: self-government; humility; fidelity; honesty; conviction; leadership; faith; wisdom; courage; and commonality.

For a man who fails to exhibit the dual graces of self-sufficiency and self-restraint; or the man who places himself above others in his mind; or the man who is unfaithful in his heart; or the man who is dishonest with himself or others; or the man who can't stand up for a principle; or a man who can't inspire other men; or a man with no beliefs; or a man who isn't smart enough to know that he doesn't know everything; or the man who shrinks in the face of challenges; or the man who cannot relate to his fellow man, no, none of these men are fit to govern others.

Sadly, I see a little bit of the above in every candidate. Recognize some of these things in Rudy? McCain? Even my current favorite, Romney? Yes to all of them.

Beyond that, then there's more principles, like the one nearest and dearest to my heart, balanced government. Which to me, is just another way of saying a proper reverence to the construction of the Constitution and the intentions of those who created it.

Beyond that, then there's real issues - these are the things that people talk about in coffee shops and around the water cooler. We need to seal our border and begin immediate deportation of every illegal alien in our prison system. After that's done, INS must begin rounding up the law breakers that just haven't been caught yet. Those illegally here should be deported immediately as well, and anyone employing them should be fined for being an accessory to a crime. Concurrently, federal public aid should be abolished immediately and forevermore; if states elect to provide public aid, let that be their business. As the open borders "Economism" (see more here) philosophy teaches us, there's lots of jobs that the illegals are doing that are going to need to be filled. So let's get the "under-employed" employed, shall we?

What else, what else? Oh yeah, a War Czar? I'll devote another entire post to what a conservative candidate would say - and do - on national security and foreign affairs.

All right, I know. Go take a bath or something and calm down. Not a bad idea. But hit me with challenges, I'm ready for 'em, and I think I've got better answers than the frauds who are lining up and taking cash while selling America down the river.

More on McCain

This old fighter may have a few rounds left in him.

The media practically declared McCain's candidacy dead in the water, right before he told this joke. Listen here, courtesy of YouTube. Unlike the botched joke of Jean-Francois Kerry, I think McCain's comments were well considered. For a guy who has been not the favorite son of most conservatives, a gentle reminder that he's tough - very tough - on defense will warm even the most hardened heart (witness mine, as Exhibit A).

McCain then has a pretty good performance at the debate and takes a shot at Rudy today.

I'm not sold yet on any candidate; for me, it's too early for that. They've all got weaknesses, for that matter, and how this chess match goes remains to be seen. But don't be surprised if McCain's numbers rise - probably mostly at Rudy's expense - as he begins to slowly hammer home his message. That message is going to be: I'm more conservative than Rudy, and better on defense than Romney. If he can control how the differences are framed, he might up and surprise both of those guys and take their lunch money. He must, however, avoid any discussions of the Gang of 14 and "Campaign Finance Reform" like Bill Clinton avoids Hillary.

Additional concern? Maybe, maybe not. Hugh Hewitt was a guest on the Michael Medved show today, dissing Fred Thompson's speech right after the GOP debate. According to Hugh, Fred seemed to fall down a little bit. It was a huge opportunity, with a lot of excitement in the air, and he just came out flat. Of course, Hugh's got a book out on Romney, so take it with a grain of salt, perhaps?

Graphic Image

Courtesy of the Patriot Post: This is what it looked like the last time we ran a conservative. You can link to a larger image here. Let's do it again like we did back then, 1984-style.

Informal Poll

I'm curious about your thoughts on the early candidates and not-yet-announced candidates for 2008 - and let's stick to GOP for now.

Feel free to sound off about any or all of the following: McCain, Guiliani, Romney, Gingrich or Fred Thompson. Am I missing some? Feel free to address those, too.

I'll share some thoughts of my own on what I like and dislike about each. We're still a long way off, but it'll be August before you know it and this is going to start to mean something.

THE MONARCHIST ADDS: I've gotta find more time for this sort of thing and not get started on it at 10:00 every night, LOL. Here's the thing about the names I mentioned... the only one who seems any good is Thompson, and that's probably because what little we know about him is this: he's no BS-er. McCain and Guiliani are both horrible. I heard Romney on the Laura Ingraham show last week, and he was all over the place. First, he was suggesting that abortion should be decided by the states (!! - what the deuce??) and then, two sentences later, he's quoting the DoI. I was at one time thinking he'd be the guy, but after that incoherent drivel, I'm so over Romney.

Talk radio is already playing the audio clips of Rudy talking up federally-funded abortions. And don't get me started on John "clean government" McCain.

THE MONARCHIST ADDS: I'm happy to see that the most recent (3/23) edition of the Patriot Post does a nice job of plugging Fred Thompson. But guys, what took you 8 days to get caught up with the American Federalist Blog?

Survey Says: Irritated

I recently received a member survey from Mike Duncan at the RNC. Hurray!

Two questions into it I decided that my efforts to educate the people at the RNC were going to be in vain - as soon as my survey is received sans check, in the trash it would go. Now that I think of it, I'd bet they toss the ones that come back with checks, for that matter.

Question 1: Do I think it is important to make the President's tax cuts permanent? Answer: Are you kidding me? Taxes on personal income should be abolished, not reduced. Taxes should be based on consumption, as a wise man once noted, for they are a natural check against the growth of government.

Question 2: Is it important to provide incentives for businesses to create new jobs? Answer: What the deuce are you talking about? Businesses create jobs because they can deliver a product or service that people want. If they're able to do this, and they're not creating jobs, it's because government needs to get out of the way.

Question 3: Line-item veto important? Answer: Have these people any idea at all about the way government used to work? If a piece of legislation reaches the President's desk that is Constitutionally inconsistent, veto that piece of trash and send it back to Congress! Will some branch of government - any one would do! - please stand up and execute its Constitutional duties?

Several questions later...

Question 6: Important to reform our immigration laws? Answer: What's the minimum criteria for getting a job at the RNC, a pulse? How about we start with enforcing the immigration laws we have? Let's try that first, then we can talk about reforming them, whatever that means. This is like a patient in the ER who has been run over by a car, and the attending surgeon says: "Let's get that broken nose set before we go any further."

Question 7: Important to increase border security? Answer: No, let's just open the borders up and let anyone at all into the country. Wait. Sorry. We're already doing that! Should this be a big surprise, though? I mean, after all, Mel Martinez (General Chairman, whatever that means) probably had some input in the survey.

Didn't we used to be the party of ideas? Principles? Since when does the GOP need to take the temperature of regular people to determine what the right policies are? Answer: Since they lost touch with regular people, probably sometime after 1994.

"Grand" Old Party

I attended a GOP Township meeting last night. There were all sorts of elected officials there, and the meeting went about normal business. Our keynote speaker was the chairman of the county GOP. To say that his speech left me puzzled is something of an understatement.

He hammered on how well things went in the county, which is a strong GOP bastion. Of course, patting ourselves on the back for holding our county is a hollow victory when one reflects on the failures of the party statewide. The time for patting ourselves on the back... well it didn't seem like that's appropriate given the overall outcome.

He highlighted some competitive races and how the party learned some valuable lessons:

One of which was that "we" (quotes used to denote that I'm not necessarily thrilled about being part of the we) are losing the middle-class suburban woman to the Demos on the stem-cell issue. I was a little surprised by this comment, which in spirit was a challenge that we need to re-think the issue. His example was that the successful Roskam used a cancer survivor who was treated with adult stem cells in their treatment, to counter Michael J. Fox stumping for Demo Tammy Duckworth.

(deep breath)

I not only strenuously object to the Demos politicizing disease as a means to forward an agenda, but recoil in horror that instead of countering such shamelessness with outrage, reason, facts and objectivity, that we instead trot out our own victim. If indeed we're losing voters to the Demos on the stem-cell issue, the voters are wrong. Absolutely, and without qualification, dead wrong. Our duty, then, is to explain how the Demos are wrong on the issue and how we're right on the issue.

Secondly, and as big a surprise to me, was the chairman's comments that 80% of the Latino vote went Demo in the election which is something we should be "very concerned about" - and the spirit of his comments again was courting these voters, with respect to immigration reform. I was, once again, speechless. Understanding demographic changes, I acknowledge, is what political candidates, operatives and consultants need to do. I cannot find a single reason, upon near-constant reflection since last night, to violate these principles to sway voters. Either we stand for something or we stand for nothing. We should vehemently explain, clarify, and argue for our positions. But compromise them? Deliberately lie, or worse, do the wrong thing, just to stay in power?

I concluded at the night's end, that there remains an enormous amount of work to be done to further the principles of federalism and return the Republic to the proper balance as the framers intended. I take some comfort that elected officials are merely a reflection of their constituents, and when the electorate changes, so shall the elected.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills

Will Ferrell said this in the 2001 comedy "Zoolander." For those of you not in the know, Will was playing a fashion mogul plotting against the PM of Malaysia (stay with me). Ben Stiller was this airheaded male model who had multiple "looks" - except they were the same pout every time. An exasperated Will finally loses it at the end, shouting at the people around him, did they not realize this? And that, yes, he felt like he was taking crazy pills.

Funny in Zoolander. Not so funny with regard to the flap over the price of gas, in the event you're feeling like I am, the last sane person in a world gone mad.

It seems that both Democrats and Republicans are both falling all over themselves to denounce something as American as... making a profit. Yes, imagine that! So the chorus in Washington (did I mention this is an election year?) is that Big Oil is bad, they're apparently somehow "gouging" people, and that Congress must do something about it. I would respectfully ask that if they must do something, it might be 1) take a long vacation, 2) consider spinal-implant surgery, or 3) take a class in economics.

Funny thing about the price of oil - it's awfully hard to manipulate it. Years ago OPEC nations decided to collude on the price of oil, in an attempt to maximize profits. To do so, they had to agree on production quotas - simply put, hold supply down, and even unchanged demand will cause prices to rise. Problem was, with increasing prices per barrel, producers cheated and produced more barrels (thinking they were the only ones doing that). With supply increasing, prices naturally came down, despite the cartel's best efforts.

Here's the deal. Gas prices are related to oil prices. Oil prices are determined by global supply and global demand. As global demand increases (think China and India), oil prices are going to go up. So will gas prices.

But so will production. Exxon made billions in profit last year, but also invested billions in exploration and R&D. They're in the business of finding, refining and selling oil products. That they're really good at it is no reason to get hysterical, and all of those spinally-challenged mouthpieces in Washington ought to be ashamed of themselves. That they think so little of the American people ought to be reason enough to throw the bums out.

That this is also coming from Republicans is another reason why I no longer identify myself as such. To anyone who might agree with what I'm saying, consider defining yourself thusly: I am a conservative. Say it with me. There, doesn't that feel better?